CONCLUSION.--_Out with the Invader._
"Let infamy be that man's portion who uses his power to corrupt, toruin, to debase," says Channing, in righteous indignation, speaking ofthe atrocities perpetrated by Napoleon the First to gratify his vanityand ambition. Further on, with increasing earnestness, Channing adds:"In anguish of spirit we exclaim: 'How long will an abject world kissthe foot that tramples it? How long shall crime find shelter in its veryaggravations and excess?'"
If Channing lived now, his 'anguish of spirit' would be far greater tofind in his own country, firmly enthroned, _a power that corrupts, ruinsand debases_ as utterly as that which he so eloquently deplored, and hisown fellow-citizens--the free-born Americans--ready and willing to _kissthe foot that tramples them_!
Not infamy, but honor and wealth, is the portion of the men who corruptand ruin and debase in this country. Honor and wealth for the Napoleonsof this land, whose power the sons of California can neither check, northwart, nor escape, nor withstand. And in California, as in France,"crime finds shelter in its very aggravations and excess," for after tenyears of fighting in Congress against legislation that would have givento the people of the Southern States and the Pacific Coast a competingrailway; and after fighting against creating a sinking fund tore-imburse moneys due to the Government, and fighting against laws toregulate freights and fares on a fair basis, they (the Napoleons) refuseto pay taxes on their gigantic property, thus making it necessary forthe Governor of California to call an extra session of the Legislatureto devise some new laws which will compel those defiant millionaires topay taxes, and not leave upon the shoulders of poor people the onerousduty of defraying public expenses.
Is not this "aggravation of excess?" Excess of defiance? Excess oflawlessness? How insidiously these monopolists began their work ofaccumulation, which has culminated in a power that not only eludes thelaw of the land, but defies, derides it! They were poor men. They camebefore the Government at Washington, and before the people ofCalifornia, as suppliant petitioners, humbly begging for aid toconstruct a railroad. The aid was granted most liberally, and as soon asthey accumulated sufficient capital to feel rich they began their workof eluding and defying the law. They became insolent, flinging defiance,as if daring the law to touch them, and truly, the law thus far has beenpowerless with them. At Washington they won their first victoriesagainst the American people; and now California has the shame of seeingthat she has not the power to enforce her laws upon the men she maderich. The Legislature convened and adjourned, and there is no way yet ofcompelling the insolent millionaires to pay their taxes or regulatetheir rates on freights and fares!
It seems now that unless _the people of California take the law in theirown hands_, and seize the property of those men, and confiscate it, tore-imburse the money due _the people_, the arrogant corporation willnever pay. They are so accustomed to appropriate to themselves whatrightfully belongs to others, and have so long stood before the world indefiant attitude, that they have become utterly insensible to thosesentiments of fairness animating law-abiding men of probity and sense ofjustice.
These monopolists are essentially dangerous citizens in the fullestacceptance of the word. They are dangerous citizens, not only in beingguilty of violation of the law, in subverting the fundamental principlesof public morality, but they are dangerous citizens, because they _leadothers_ into the commission of the same crimes. Their example is deadlyto honorable sentiments; it is poison to Californians, because itallures men with the glamour of success; it incites the unwary toimitate the conduct of men who have become immensely rich by suchculpable means.
Mr. Huntington in his letters (made public in the Colton suit), showsthe truth of all this; shows how bribing and corrupting seemed to himperfectly correct. He speaks of "the men that can be _convinced_"(meaning the men that will take bribes), as naturally as if no one needblush for it. And with the same frankness he discloses his maneuveringto defeat the Texas Pacific Railroad, and elude the payment of moneysdue the Government. It is surprising, as well as unpleasant, to read inMr. Huntington's letters the names of men in high positions whom hereckons in his list as "men who can _be convinced_" and he speaks ofthem in a cool way and off-hand manner, which shows how little respecthe has for those whom he can _convince_. Perhaps there are some in hislist who never did take a bribe from him, but then those gentlemen arein the position of "Old Dog Tray," who suffered for being in badcompany.
"I have set matters to work in the South that I think will switch mostof the South from Tom Scott's Texas and Pacific bill," etc., etc., Mr.Huntington wrote in April, '75, and in November of the same year heconcluded to send Dr. Gwin to work on the credulity of the Southerners,to switch them off.
"I think the doctor can do us some good if he can work under cover. * ** He must not come to the surface as _our man_. * * * Not as our agent,but as an anti-subsidy Democrat and a Southern man," etc. When thedeceiver returned, Mr. Huntington wrote: "I notice what you say aboutthe interest that Dr. Gwin should have. I have no doubt that we shallagree about what his interest should be," says Mr. Huntington, speakingof the price to be paid the ex-Senator for his work of helping to"_switch off the South_!"
In another letter Mr. Huntington says: "I had a talk with Bristow,Secretary of the Treasury. He will be likely to help us fix up ourmatters with the Government on a fair basis."
Another letter says: "I am doing all I can to have the Government takesix million acres of land, and give the railroad company credit forfifteen million dollars, etc. I wish you would have the newspapers takethe ground that this land ought to be taken by the Government and heldfor the people, etc. Something that the demagogues can vote and workfor," etc.
Mr. Huntington also says: "I think there should be a bridge companyorganized (that we are not in) to build over the Colorado River, etc. Inthis way we could tax the through business on this line should we sodesire," etc.
In another letter, dated March 7th, 1877, he says: "I stayed inWashington two days to fix up a Railroad Committee in the Senate. * * *The Committee is just as we want it, which is a very important thing forus." * * *
He again says: "The Committees are made up for the Forty-fifth Congress.I think the Railroad Committee is right, but the Committees onTerritories I do not like. A different one was promised me. Sherrel hasjust telegraphed me to come to Washington," etc.
Mr. Huntington mentions in other letters the fact of bills beingsubmitted to him before being put to vote; and also about beingconsulted concerning the formation of Committees and other Congressionalmatters, much as if Congress really wished to keep on the good side ofMr. Huntington. But it looked also as if he did not have everything hisown way always, for at times he loses patience and calls Congress a "setof the worst strikers," and "the hungriest set" he ever saw.
In his letter to his friend Colton, of June 20th, '78, he exclaims: "Ithink in the world's history never before was such a wild set ofdemagogues honored by the name of Congress. We have been hurt some, butsome of the worst bills have been defeated, but we cannot stand manysuch Congresses," etc.
The thing that annoyed Mr. Huntington the most was that he could notpersuade Governor Stanford to tell the bare-faced falsehood, that theSouthern Pacific did not belong to the owners of the Central Pacific.
Again and again Mr. Huntington urged the necessity of this falsehoodbeing told, childishly forgetting the fact that such prevaricationswould have been useless, as all Californians knew the truth.
In the Congressional Committees, however, he himself attempted to passoff that misstatement. It is not likely that he was believed, but hesucceeded in killing the Texas Pacific, and in "seeing the grass growover Tom Scott." The subterfuge no doubt was useful.
Mr. Huntington having buried the Texas Pacific, and also Colonel Scott,as well as other worthy people (of whom no mention has been made in thisbook), now proceeded to demand that the Government surrender to him andassociates, the land subsidy granted by Congress to the Texas Pacific.
Th
is, surely, is an "_aggravation of excess_!"
The House Committee on Public Lands in their report on the "_forfeitureof the Texas Pacific land grant_" reviewed Mr. Huntington's acts withmerited severity. Amongst many other truths the report says: "TheSouthern Pacific claims to 'stand in _the shoes_' of the Texas Pacific.Your committee agree that 'standing in the shoes' would do if theSouthern Pacific _filled the shoes_." But it does not. It never hadauthority or recognition by Congress east of Yuma. For its own purpose,by _methods which honest men have denounced_, greedy to embrace all landwithin its net-work of rails, to secure monopoly of transportation,surmounting opposition and beating down all obstacles in its way, and indoing so, crushing the agent Congress had selected as instrument tobuild a road there, _doing nothing, absolutely nothing, by governmentalauthority or assent even, and having succeeded in defeating a necessarywork and rendering absolutely abortive the attempt to have one competingtransportation route to the Pacific built, it coolly asks to bestow uponit fifteen millions of acres of lands; to give it the ownership of anarea sufficient for perhaps one hundred thousand homes, as a reward forthat result_.
And the committee (with one dissenting voice only) reported theiropinion that the Southern Pacific Railroad Company had _neither legalnor equitable_ claim to the lands of the Texas Pacific which Mr.Huntington wished to appropriate.
But is it not a painful admission that these few men should havethwarted and defeated the purpose and intent of the Government of theUnited States of having a competing railway in the Texas Pacific? Notonly Colonel Scott, and Hon. John C. Brown, and Mr. Frank T. Bond, thePresident and Vice President of this road, but also Senator Lamar, Mr.J. W. Throckmorton, Mr. House, Mr. Chandler, of Mississippi, and many,many other able speakers, honorable, upright men, all endeavoredfaithfully to aid the construction of the Texas Pacific. All failed. Thefalsehoods disseminated by ex-Senator Gwin, which Senator Gordon andothers believed, and thus in good faith reproduced, had more effect whenbacked by the monopoly's money.
But Tom Scott is laid low, and so is the Texas Pacific; now the fightfor greedy accumulation is transferred to California. The monopoly isconfident of getting the land subsidy of the Texas Pacific--afterkilling it; of getting every scrap that might be clutched under pretextof having belonged to the decapitated road. Thus the lands that the Cityof San Diego donated to Tom Scott _on condition_ that the Texas Pacificshould be built, even these, the monopoly has by some means seized upon.No Texas Pacific was built, but nevertheless, though clearly specifiedstipulations be violated, San Diego's lands must go into the voraciousjaws of the monster. Poor San Diego! After being ruined by the greed ofthe heartless monopolists, she is made to contribute her widow's mite toswell the volume of their riches! This is cruel irony indeed.
And now those pampered millionaires have carried their defiance of thelaw to the point of forcing the Governor of California to call an extrasession of the Legislature to compel them to obey the law. Speaking ofthese matters a very able orator said in one of his speeches in theextra session:
"It is stated in the proclamation of the Governor to convene thisLegislature, that for three or four years past the principal railroadsin this State have set at defiance the laws of the people; that theyhave refused to pay their taxes; that they had set up within our bordersan _imperium in imperio_; that they had avowed and declared themselvesfree from the laws of the State under which they hold theirorganization; that there were no laws in this State to which they werebound to submit and pay such taxes as would have fallen to them had theybeen subject to the laws of the State, etc., etc. It has not occurredbefore in the United States that a great Commonwealth has been defiedsuccessfully by its own creatures."
Other speakers followed, and we of California have now, at least, thesatisfaction of knowing that faithful hearts and bright intellects havebeen aroused and are watching the strides of the monster power.
The Spanish population of the State are proud of their countryman,Reginaldo del Valle, who was one of the first to take a bold standagainst the monopoly. This young orator with great ability andindomitable energy, has never flagged in his eloquent denunciations ofthe power which has so trampled the laws of California and the rights ofher children.
Mr. Breckinridge, another brilliant orator, speaking of the pertinaciousdefiance of the law exhibited by the monopolists, said: "Nothing but ashock, a violent shock, a rude lesson--such as the old French noblessegot when they saw their chateaux fired and their sons guillotined--willawaken them from their dream of security."
The champions of right fought well, fought nobly, in the legislature,but alas! the gold of the monopoly was too powerful, and the _extrasession_, called to devise means of compelling the railroad corporationto obey the law, adjourned--adjourned, having _failed_ in accomplishingthe object for which it was called.
The legislators themselves acknowledged that corruption was too strongto be withstood. Mr. Nicol said:
"There was once a belief that the legislature of California was a high,honorable body, into which it should be the pride and glory of fathersto see their sons gain admission. I have been here two sessions, andinstead of being a place to which an honorable ambition should prompt ayoung man to aspire, I believe it to be the worst place on thecontinent. _We are surrounded by a lobby which degrades every man hereby constant temptation and offers of corruption; the monopoly has madeit no place where a careful father will send his son._"
If these powerful monopolists were to speak candidly, would they saythat the result of their struggle for money in the last fourteen yearsof their lives has compensated them for that shoulder-to shoulder fightwith opponents who were in the right, and must be vanquished by foulmeans? "I shall see the grass grow over Tom Scott," prophetically wroteMr. Huntington several times. He had his wish. The grass grows over TomScott. Mr. Huntington can claim the glory of having laid low hispowerful opponent, for it is well known that the ten years' struggle forthe Texas Pacific undermined Colonel Scott's health beyond recovery.Broken down in health, he left Mr. Huntington master of the field. Butis the victory worth the cost? The fight was certainly not glorious forthe victor. Is it to be profitable? Many lives have been wrecked, manypeople impoverished, much injustice done, and all for the sake of havingthe Southern Pacific Railroad without a rival, without competition. Thisroad runs mostly through a desert; how is it to be made profitable? Intheir eager pursuit of riches, the projectors of it miscalculated theinevitable, and did not foresee that other capital could, in a fewyears, build competing lines through more favorable routes; did notforesee that it would have been a better policy to adhere honestly tothe terms of their first charter; did not foresee that it would havebeen better not to sacrifice San Diego. No, they deemed it a wiser planto kill Tom Scott, to kill San Diego, and then take the money earned inthis manner to go and build railroads in Guatemala and in BritishAmerica. To men who do not think that in _business_ the rights of othersshould be considered, this policy of crushing or desolating everythingin the path of triumphant accumulators no doubt is justifiable. But whyshould the rich enjoy rights that are "deadly to other men?" It isalleged in defense of the California railroad monopolists that as theydo not think it would be lucrative to run a railroad to San Diego, theydo not build any. If this were a true allegation, why did they fear theTexas Pacific as a competing road? Why did they spend so much money andten years of their lives to kill that railroad? Surely, if they knew sowell that a road to San Diego would not pay, why were they so anxious toprevent its construction? Was it out of a purely disinterested andphilanthropic solicitude for their rivals? Did Mr. Huntington wish "tosee grass grow over Tom Scott" because he kindly desired to prevent hisfinancial ruin?
Obviously, to maintain that the monopoly did not build a road to SanDiego because it would not pay, and that they would not allow Tom Scottto build it either, for the same reason, is not logical. If to constructand run such road would have been ruinous, that was the very best ofreasons for allowing it to be built. This would have been
as effective away of getting rid of Colonel Scott as by seeing grass grow over hisgrave.
But no, it is not true that the San Diego road would not have beenprofitable; the truth is, that because it would have been profitable, itwas dreaded as a rival of the Southern Pacific. But the monopoly had nomoney to build two roads at once, so they (characteristically) thoughtbest to kill it. As they could not have it, no one else should. And forthis reason, and because one of the railroad kings conceived a greatanimosity against the people of San Diego and became their bitter,revengeful enemy, they were not allowed to have a railroad. This lastfact seems incredibly absurd, but if we remember how a Persian tyrantrazed a city to the ground because he ate there something that gave himan indigestion, we ought not be surprised if a modern king--one ofCalifornia's tyrants--should punish a little city because it did notturn out _en masse_ to do him humble obeisance. Doubtless, to indulge insuch petty malice was not lofty; it was a sort of mental indigestion notto be proud of; it was a weakness, but it was also a wickedness, andworse yet, it was a _blunder_.
Time alone, however, will prove this. In the meanwhile, the money earnedin California (as Californians only know how) is taken to build roads inGuatemala. Towns are crushed and sacrificed in California to carryprosperity to other countries. And California groans under her heavyload, but submits, seeing her merchants and farmers ground down with"special contracts" and discriminating charges, and the refractorypunished with pitiless severity. Thus, merchants and farmers are hushedand made docile under the lash, for what is the use of complaining? Whenthe Governor of this State sought in vain to curb the power of themonster and compel it to pay taxes by calling an extra session of theLegislature, and nothing was done, what more can be said?
Ask the settlers of the Mussel Slough what is their experience of thepitiless rigor of the monopoly towards those who confidently trusted inthe good faith of the great power. These poor farmers were told by therailroad monopoly to locate homesteads and plant orchards and vineyardsand construct irrigating canals; that they would not have to pay fortheir land any higher price than before it was improved. With thisunderstanding the farmers went to work, and with great sacrifices andarduous labor made their irrigating canals and other improvements. Thenwhen this sandy swamp had been converted into a garden, and valuelesslands made very valuable, the monopoly came down on the confiding peopleand demanded the price of the land after it had been improved. Thefarmers remonstrated and asked that the original agreement should berespected; but all in vain. The arm of the law was called to eject them.They resisted, and bloodshed was the consequence. Some of them werekilled, but all had to submit, there was no redress.
And what price did the monopoly pay for these lands? Not one penny, dearreader. These lands are a little bit of a small portion out of manymillions of acres given as a subsidy, a _gift_, to build the SouthernPacific Railroad, which road, the charter said, was to pass through SanDiego and terminate at Fort Yuma.
The line of this road was changed without authority. [Mr. Huntingtontalks in his letters about _convincing_ people to make this change.]Thus the Mussel Slough farmers got _taken in_, into Mr. Huntington'slines--as was stated by the public press.
But these, as well as the blight, spread over Southern California, andover the entire Southern States, are historical facts. All of which,strung together, would make a brilliant and most appropriate chaplet toencircle the lofty brow of the great and powerful monopoly. Ourrepresentatives in Congress, and in the State Legislature, knowing fullwell the will of the people, ought to legislate accordingly. If they donot, then we shall--as Channing said "kiss the foot that tramples us!"and "in anguish of spirit" must wait and pray for a Redeemer who willemancipate the white slaves of California.
Thank you for reading books on BookFrom.Net Share this book with friends